Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] front converters (was A-200 teleconverter)

Subject: Re: [OM] front converters (was A-200 teleconverter)
From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:36:33 GMT
Hey, Andrew: those front-attaching semi-fisheye converters aren't bad at the center, tho' a bit soft at the edges. Here are a couple of recent images done with one atop a Zuiko 50/1.8 on Fuji Reala, followed by one using the Zuiko 35/2.8 shift.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26270204&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26332124&Sequence=0&res=high

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1005538&a=7400079&p=26270203&Sequence=0&res=high

From what I can tell most of the semi-fisheye converters are made by the
same one or two companies and marketed under different labels, so the optical quality should be pretty similar from one to the next. Unlike a true wide angle lens the converter has no effect on depth of field. So while combining one with a 50mm normal lens gives coverage equivalent to a 21mm lens (with lots of curvature), DOF characteristics remain those of a 50mm lens.

I like mine for limited purposes. It's fun. The thing is most useful with focal lengths in the 35-50mm range. Wider than 35mm, you get more circular vignetting with increased distortion but little extra actual coverage.

Flare is surprisingly well controlled, possibly because the front element isn't a convex bubble. These converters usually include small hoods that can be turned to minimize most flare, and some careful shading with a hand or hat can handle the rest. Outdoors mine usually exhibits one or two distinctive flare points rather than a veiling sort of flare that reduces contrast, so it's not a bad trade-off. The main problem, as with any ultrawide lens, is not letting the bright sky fool the meter into underexposing the shots.

Lex
===

From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] front converters (was A-200 teleconverter)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:07:14 +1100

My local pawnbroker type stores (Cash Converters) always seem to have screw
in wide and tele supplementary lenses for videocams, often in useable
filter mounts around 52/55/series VII sizes. How good or bad are these?
Anyone played with them? Are there good and bad brands - they seem to have
names like Vitacon which I've never heard of! How do they compare with
coventional teleconvertors?
I assume that as they're for video cameras, the quality doesn't have to be
as good as for still photography.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz